Federal prosecutors say there is “no serious dispute” that James Comey’s “86 47” seashell post could be read as a threat to President Trump.
Story Highlights
- The Justice Department indictment says Comey’s post signaled harm toward President Trump.
- Prosecutors argue an objective viewer could see a serious threat in the “86 47” image.
- Comey’s lawyers call the post protected political speech and seek dismissal.
- Courts weigh “true threat” cases by context and intent, which remain contested here.
What Prosecutors Say the Seashells Meant
The Department of Justice said a grand jury charged James Comey over an Instagram photo of seashells arranged as “86 47.” Prosecutors argue “86” means to get rid of someone and “47” points to Trump as the 47th president. They say a reasonable person could view the photo as a serious threat to the President’s safety, not mere slang or a joke. In a new filing, the government added that there is “no serious dispute” the image could be read as threatening.
Government lawyers also cited Comey’s own writing to show his state of mind, and they contend the message was a coded call to “get rid of” President Trump. They argue the case fits long-standing law that allows prosecution of true threats even if the speaker uses symbols or indirect language. The filing frames the post as a targeted message about a specific person who could reasonably feel endangered by it, given the national climate and Comey’s large audience.
How Comey’s Defense Frames Free Speech
Comey’s attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the charge. They argue the post was political speech, not a call to violence. They say “86” often means remove or reject, and that no reasonable person would think Comey promised violence himself. They add that the First Amendment protects sharp political talk, even if it offends, so long as it is not a true threat. Their filing says a fair reader would see hyperbole, not a plan to harm.
The defense notes Comey deleted the post once he saw people read it as violent. They say that choice shows the lack of intent to threaten. They also point to other uses of “8647” on hats, signs, and flags as political slogans, not violent codes. Supporters cite a separate ruling involving an “8647” flag where a judge found the display to be protected speech and not a true threat to anyone’s safety, under the record in that case.
Why This Case Tests the “True Threat” Line
Courts define a true threat as a statement that makes a target reasonably fear serious harm. Judges weigh the speaker’s intent and the context around the words or symbols. Social media often flattens that context. Posts move fast and lose cues, which makes meaning easy to dispute. Legal scholars say the standard turns on how a reasonable person would read the post in context, plus some showing of the speaker’s mindset.
This fight lands in a time when threats against public officials have surged. Many readers will see “86 47” and shrug it off as a meme. Others will see menace when the nation’s former top federal agent posts it. Prosecutors say the law must shield the President from coded threats. The defense says speech protections must stand firm, or politics will be criminalized. The judge will decide whether a jury should hear that debate or the case ends now.
What Conservatives Should Watch Next
The court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss will set the path. If the case goes forward, expect a sharp focus on Comey’s intent, the meaning of “86,” and whether the post targeted President Trump with a serious threat. If the judge throws it out, speech rights will get a boost, but many will ask how to deter truly dangerous posts online. Either way, the standard for political speech in the digital age will be clearer after this fight.
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, cnbc.com, firstamendment.mtsu.edu, bloomberg.com, cbc.ca, kvia.com, wral.com
